As I was scrolling through the Comm 101 blog site, I noticed two blog posts regarding the best workplace on Earth. Alanna Hua claimed that Microsoft was number one, while Bianca Pinasco believed that Google should own the podium. After some research, I have to say that the best company to work for is SAS. Yes, you read that right. SAS, not Microsoft, not Google and not Apple.

**For those that don’t know, SAS is a Carolina-based software company that offers software and services to governments and large corporations.**

Anyways, so what makes SAS so special? Of course, like Google, SAS offers many services to their employees. All SAS employees and their families have free access to on-site recreation centres, medical services and families also receive child-care benefits.

That, however, is not what sets SAS apart from their competitors. What distinguishes them is the undying loyalty and commitment the top management has for its employees. During the Great Recession in 2008, almost all of SAS’ customers stopped buying products; consequently, employee moral reached an all-time low. To tackle the problem, Dr. Jim Goodnight, CEO of SAS, made a public guarantee: He announced that not a single one of the 13,000 employees would be laid off and only requested employees to be more frugal in the future months to get through the recession. (By the way, that year (2009), SAS recorded record profits).

Appropriately, last year, SAS was ranked the best workplace on earth, over Google and Microsoft.

References:

https://blogs.ubc.ca/alanna0128/2013/11/14/best-working-place-on-earth/

https://blogs.ubc.ca/biancapinasco/2013/11/09/the-best-workplace-in-the-world/

http://www.fastcompany.com/3004953/how-sas-became-worlds-best-place-work

Recently, I came across a blog post written by a fellow classmate, regarding Tim Horton’s decision to reduce menu items. Cynthia Chang claimed that to increase store efficiency, it is essential for Tim Horton’s to focus on selling the more ‘popular’ items on their menu. Based on my analysis of Porter’s Generic Strategies, I agree that Tim Hortons will increase efficiency by decreasing differentiation.

However, I believe that Tim Hortons should go beyond eliminating products on their menu. Tim Hortons value proposition is to offer top quality products while promoting exceptional service to customers. Over the past couple years, Tim Hortons desperately tried to compete with companies like McDonald’s by offering a whole new variety of products. While I am impressed by the new products they offer such as the Beef Lasagna Casserole and the Jalapeno Biscuit Breakfast Sandwich, I feel that they are trying to enter a market they do not specialize in. Such efforts remind me of Amazon’s futile attempt to create their own shipping company. As a result of the new products, Tim Hortons has compromised both the quality of their products and the great service they once provided. Is it really worth it?

References

https://blogs.ubc.ca/cynthiachiang/2013/11/15/tim-hortons-should-shorten-menu-to-shorten-line/

In September, an unidentified Middle Eastern Prince purchased three floors of residences on top of the Fairmont Pacific Rim Hotel. The condominium is truly in a class of its own. Located in Downtown Vancouver, it features a stunning view of the city and its surroundings. The interior, at 15,000 square feet, has brilliant architecture and is embellished with luxurious goods. Sounds like a typical purchase by a rich immigrant right? Wrong. He paid $55 million for the transaction, in cash.

Yes, you read that right. $55 million in cash. The average Canadian makes a little more than $50,000 a year and over a 40 year career, that would amount to approximately $2,000,000. Assuming one has zero living expenses, they’d still have to work for 1,100 years to earn that kind of money.

While both the Middle Eastern Prince and Fairmont benefit from this deal, the winner must be the real estate agent who managed these properties. Based on the commission’s rates in BC, the agent would likely have pocketed $2 million from this one deal. One deal paid him more than the average Canadian makes over a lifetime. I know what I’m going to major in now!

References:

http://globalnews.ca/news/864305/vancouver-property-worth-55-million-dollars-makes-the-biggest-residential-real-estate-deal-in-canadian-history/

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/09/55-million-condo-in-vancouver-largest-canadian-real-estate-transaction/

There is often talk about poor working conditions in China, Africa and developing countries. However, many often overlook another work related issue that happens here in the so-called “developed” world – Overworking.

To tackle this issue, Goldman Sachs has banned workers from working between 9pm Friday night and 9am Sunday morning (as of November 2013). Goldman is also discouraging employees from working at home during those hours and encouraging employees to take a minimum of three weeks off every year.

Controversy erupted this past summer after a 21-year-old intern at the Bank of America Merill Lynch died from overworking. This new policy should strengthen Goldman’s public image. Also, Goldman hopes that happier and healthier employees will mean improved productivity, which in turn will lead to further successes.

The happiness part, of course assumes that employees wish to work less hours. As surprising as this sounds, not everyone prefers to work less hours. In August 2013 South Korean legislation passed a bill that shortened work hours and they faced heavy criticism as a result. People faced higher levels of stress at work because they had to meet the same demands in less working hours.

So, how will Goldman employees react to this new policy? Will they be support or refute the shorter work hours?

References

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10434820/Goldman-Sachs-bans-staff-from-the-office.html

Google has done it again. This time, however, instead of creating a new, earth-shattering product, Google announced a partnership with Nestle to rename their new android system. Android Kit Kat, which was recently released along with the new Nexus 5, is proof that Google’s brain trust has not lost their innovative touch.

Early in September Google shocked the world but announcing that the name of their new Android system would be Kit Kat, rather than Key Lime Pie. On top of that it was announced that there was no money to be exchanged in this deal. So how do the companies benefit?

By partnering with another powerful brand name (earlier in 2013, Nestle was ranked as the world’s ninth most reputable company), Google can strengthen its position in the market. Additionally, the positive connotations that many associate with Kit Kat will only increase the popularity of Google’s Android system.

On the other hand, Nestle will benefit from the free marketing that Google will provide. Until the new Android is released, the name Kit Kat will be heavily marketed by Google. Furthermore, the increasing popularity of Android phones will help publicize the name Kit Kat to all corners of the world.

Anyways, it’s time to “Have a break, Have a Kit Kat!”

Here is a new commercial for Android 4.4 – Kit Kat

References:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23926938

Earlier this year, protests arose about the lack of English on Chinese store signs. Amidst the protest, Vancouver Sun blogger Douglas Todd made several blog posts that criticized Chinese-only signs in Canada. I personally disagree with the criticism aimed at Chinese businesses.

Other businesses in Greater Vancouver do not face restrictions on their store display signs, so why target Chinese stores in Richmond? Doesn’t this go against the multicultural values of Canada? The Canadian Multicultural Act states that the policies of the government “ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity.”

Moreover, the decision for businesses to favour a Chinese sign is not necessarily due to cultural conflict; it is a business decision. A business owner’s first priority is to appeal to the majority of consumers and statistics from the 2011 Canadian Census show that in some areas of Richmond the population is approximately 80% Chinese. Thus, displaying Chinese-dominated signs makes sense from a business perspective.

Mr. Todd argues that Europe and the United States would never accept such policies, which is why we need to set a new standard for multiculturalism for the world to follow. In my opinion, instead of criticizing Chinese businesses, we should embrace them and welcome them to the community.

References:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/03/16/english-should-predominate-in-richmond-signs-many-chinese-agree/

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Chinese+signs+Richmond+hand+says+delegation+appealing+more+English/8105095/story.html

Although Apple’s iPhone 5c is supposed to benefit the company, many believe that the discount phone will do more harm than good.

In the weeks prior the release, rumours that the “C” stood for “cheap” spread like wildfire. Apple, however, announced that the cheapest version of the iPhone 5c will cost $599.00. Consequently, the iPhone 5c could end up in limbo. It is not cheap enough to compete with lower end phones and does not have the same product quality as higher end phones.

Furthermore, introduction of the iPhone 5c could shift Apple away from its luxury brand status. In the past, Apple took pride in the luxury products that they offered and charged a premium for them. The introduction of a discount iPhone could tarnish the reputation that Apple spent so many years building up. Selling a discount product will take away from the exclusiveness and prestige of a luxury brand, which is a reason why Lamborghini and Maserati don’t have lower end cars.

In short, despite concerns, I believe that Apple will sell millions of the discount iPhones. While this may be beneficial in the short-run, Apple may not be so lucky in the long-run.

References:

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/Does_Apples_cheaper_iPhone_hurt_its_brand_15201.aspx

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-apple-iphone-idUSBRE98908I20130910

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-s-iphone-5c-announcement-won-t-change-anything

According to a recent study by Interbrand Corp., a New York-based brand consulting firm, Apple is now the world’s most valuable brand at $98.3 billion. After 13 years as the world’s number one brand, Coca-Cola has dropped to number three at $79.2 billion. Dethroning the world’s most valuable brand is a difficult task – not to mention that Coca-Cola’s brand value increased from the previous year – so how did Apple surpass Coca Cola?

First, led by their ‘Think Different’ campaign, Apple was able to separate themselves from their competitors. For instance, the recent upgrades to iOS7 and the fingerprint scanner system shows that Apple can still dish out innovative products. Also, studies have shown that the unique design and layout of Apple stores is highly appealing to consumers. Apple retail stores “are performing 17 times better than any other physical retail store.” Finally, the widespread consumer love for Apple products contributed to the 28% increase of the value of the brand. Interbrand states that Apple was able to usurp Coca-Cola because of its “legions of adoring fans.”  However, although Apple is now the world’s leading brand, their work is not done. In light of facing increasing competition and pressure from Samsung and Google, how will Apple respond?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiZlZgWw7ok

References:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/apple-surpasses-coke-as-world-s-best-brand-1.1873259

http://www.fastcompany.com/3018817/where-are-they-now/apple-tops-most-valuable-global-brands-list

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/apple-inc-brand/?__lsa=c515-17b8

The young child marvels at the way his elder brother dips an Oreo into a glass of milk. After an adorable struggle, the younger child happily eats his Oreo with milk. This commercial conveys the message that eating Oreos is a fun and harmless experience. Although most adults will know the risks of eating excessive amounts of Oreos, most young children will not see the risks. Young children are vulnerable to marketing campaigns because they often don’t know how to discern between good and bad. Should companies be allowed to expose children to advertisements that encourage consumption of unhealthy foods?

Some countries, such as Britain, have tackled the issue by enforcing more restrictions on television ads. As a response, food companies have launched online marketing campaigns that target children through social media and computer games. In order to attract children, major food companies have redesigned their websites to be more child-friendly. Much controversy has been aroused by the countless mini games that can be found on food company websites. For instance, one particular game involves collecting approximately 100 sweets without being caught by the angry parents in the game. Such a game could encourage young children to consume unhealthy food without the permission of their parents.

While it is not wrong for companies to promote their products, should they reduce the amount of advertisements aimed at children?

References:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/18/junk-food-children-marketing-who-tv

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/29/junk-food-ad-ban-children